New York Court denies Summary Judgement Motion

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I wanted you all to see this because it is significant on several levels.

But one of the most important to many on this board, is the following argument

made by the defense.

" Carrasco argued that the Jazylos assumed a risk by staying at the residence

after they learned of the allegedly dangerous conditions. "

Know that if you are aware you are living within a moldy environment and you

are in litigation claiming health damages from that environment, the defense

will use it against you....that YOU have played a part in your illness for

failure to leave a known hazardous situation.

Publishing

COURTROOM NEWS

Date: 5 June 2007

N.Y. Court Denies Summary Judgment Motions by Building Owners

KINGSTON, N.Y. — A New York trial court has denied summary judgment to

owners of a rental unit who relied on another court’s recent Frye ruling to

argue

that exposure to mold could not have caused the injuries claimed by their

tenants. Jazylo, et al. v. Leong, et al., No. 05-2482 (N.Y. Sup., Ulster Cty.).

Ulster County Supreme Court Justice B. Ceresia Jr. ruled on May 25

that attorney affidavits citing Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp. (13 Misc 3d

1217[A][sup Ct, N.Y. Cty. 2006]) were insufficient to support summary judgment

on tenants’ mold injury claims......

....motions for summary judgment, each arguing that New York Supreme Court

Justice Shirley W. Kornreich’s ruling on expert testimony demonstrated that

plaintiffs’ causation theories were not accepted by the relevant scientific

community.....(This was the case that was the example subject of the Wall Street

Journal article.)

Leong moved for summary judgment on the sole ground that the Jazylos failed

to show that expert opinion supporting their claims is generally accepted by

the scientific community, according to Justice Ceresia. He said the only

support was an attorney’s affidavit referencing Fraser (See

Columns-Mold, Oct. 2006)....

....The justice also rejected Carrasco’s argument that he did not breach any

duty to plaintiffs, noting that Carrasco has testified he was aware of a wet

basement and obtained a price reduction because of it.

Carrasco argued that the Jazylos assumed a risk by staying at the residence

after they learned of the allegedly dangerous conditions.

“Under the circumstances herein, assumption of risk may be considered as

comparative fault, reducing, but not prohibiting, plaintiffs’ recovery,†the

justice explained....

Document Is Available

Call (800) 496-4319 or

Search _www.harrismartin.com_ (http://www.harrismartin.com)

Order Ref# MOL-0706-04

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.